September 30, 2005

Not on purpose, of course, but the mailer they recently sent Mrs. X does more to prove the need for Proposition 75 than the Prop 75 supporters themselves ever could. The outside of the mailer reads:

It’s Time to Take a Closer Look…

…at 5 initiatives on the Special Election Ballot

Five initiatives? Five? I thought there were only two initiatives on the ballot having anything to do with CSEA. Prop 74 goes after bad teachers, so it’s little surprise the bad teachers union opposes it, but CSEA doesn’t represent teachers, only other school employees who have to deal with them. That leaves 75 and 76, the paycheck protection and balanced budget initiatives. Of course, if they really supported their members’ rights, they’d support Prop 75, too, but seeing as that initiative goes after the union’s own abuses, that’s probably a bit too much to ask for. What on earth are the other two? Answer inside:

September 29, 2005

Via Drudge, it appears Judith Miller may have left prison today after her allegedly confidential source, I. Lewis Libby, reminded her for the umpteenth time that he had released her from confidentiality a long time ago. Oops.

Meanwhile, some things haven’t changed, namely, Michael McMenamin of ReasonTM remains a liar (or, possibly, the world’s most uninformed attorney), and I remain banned from ReasonTM for having had the audacity to say so out loud. Perhaps he or his wholly owned subsidiary, Tim Cavanaugh, would care to explain how quickly, suddenly and easily Ms. Miller managed to walked away from the offense she had allegedly been “tried, convicted and sentenced to prison” over. I’m not holding my breath.

Now the question turns to who President Bush will appoint to replace Justice O’Connor. Julie Meyers may be in need of a job, why not nominate her? She can’t do nearly as much damage on the court as she would with ICE.

UPDATE: Well, most of us habemus one, anyway. This offer not available in California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and New York. Results may vary in Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island and Washington.

September 28, 2005

Right now this poll on Findlaw has almost 95% of respondents saying Lynndie England should not serve any time in prison for her actions at Abu Ghraib. Query how many of these respondents really think her outrageous actions were no big deal, and how many were tricked by the Findlaw pollster’s brilliant decision to place the “no” radio button above the “yes” one rather than below it, where it belongs.

UPDATE: Then again, if the comments to this thread are any indication, maybe the poll isn’t so far off after all. Lordy.

Add Orange County Register writer Hanh Kim Quach to the ever-growing list of self-important journalists who mistake their own opinions for The FactsTM. In this article on the four Schwarzenegger initiatives, Quach writes the following on Prop 75, the paycheck protection initiative:

The claim: Government labor unions should stop taking workers’ money for politics without their permission.

The background: It’s true that labor unions use dues to further their political goals, but so do businesses.

Which is true, perhaps, assuming you limit your analysis to businesses that charge dues.

The facts: Critics of Proposition 75 say that businesses contribute money, without the permission of shareholders, for political goals. If unions are going to have these restrictions, businesses should be held to the same standard.

This has got to be the first “fact” I’ve read in a long time that included the word “should.” One possible explanation is that “critics of Proposition 75 say…” was intended to preface both sentences, and that the only “fact” Quach is providing is the unremarkable fact that union hacks make this lame argument. The other, more likely correct one, is that Quach thinks his own opinions are so self-evidently correct they should be characterized as “facts” rather than as “sez me.” Either way, this is not good journalism.

September 25, 2005

Last year I scored a playoff ticket I couldn’t use since the Angels went down in flames early in the series. This year, it seems I may have the opposite problem: I probably could use the ticket but I can’t get it, as they go online Monday at 10:00 a.m. PDT, at which time I’ll be on the road and not have access to the Internet (they’re not selling them by phone, either). So I’d like to make my readers a semi-offer, which I call semi- because it’s not binding and I can back out any time I want, and will have no choice but to back out on somebody if more than one person takes me up on it. The concept is simple: if you can score two or more tickets to any home game in the Division Series on Monday, invite me to the game, and if I accept, I’ll pay for my own ticket and yours (face value plus Ticketmaster charges), along with a hot dog, nachos or fries, and a lawful beverage of your choice. I have no idea how many people, if any, will participate, who will get the best seats, or if any participant is someone I already know, or any other factors that might determine who I accept this offer from if it is made. Another wild card is whether you get the ticket at all, which is tough to do even when constantly hitting “refresh” over a high speed connection. That’s OK, though, the most expensive ticket you can get is $55 online, so if two or more of you end up scoring a ticket one of you can’t use, trust me, you’ll have no trouble unloading it. If you are interested in giving this a shot, leave a comment or drop me an email.